Locally, during consultation and voting by residents, we were promised there would be two 'RED' routes in and out of the town to facilitate traffic flows especially at peak times.

I did not vote anyway as it was all horrendous waste of time and money.

In the end the RED routes were limited to 20.Never mind they have become a HUGE source of income as they are long empty sections with the odd pull in and Safety Camera partnership are trawling hundreds of speeders. [Lots of little old ladies] All the feedback has been 23 MPH and above up to 27 getting courses.

WORSE the Road Safety department has been asked to come up with some 'massaged' before and after figures to prove the safety and road collision figures since implementation.

There are NO before figures, thus the 'massage'!!!

[PLEASINGLY after my advice I see from the Telegraph they did not massage them in the end Top result]But yes they will not spend the money to remove them. The idea will not be entertained.

It is not WHAT you drive, BUT:-- the WAY that you drive it.It is not HOW fast you drive, BUT:-- HOW you drive fast.

Given my previous interactions with South Glos council, I wonder how similar the views are in BANES where DfT guidance is routinely ignored by councillors imposing the limits. Quite frankly I'd see them personally held liable for the costs, and the powers taken away from bodies that consistently demonstrate they can't be trusted to wield them.

angus wrote:If cost is an issue, why not remove all the 20 signs so it reverts to a 30 restriction (except for schools and other "vunerable" areas) but leave the traffic calming measures in place?

What traffic calming?

I assumed (based upon local experience) that there would be humps or chicanes to reinforce the 20s

That's where the article's use of zone is confusing as zones are supposed to have traffic calming at huge cost. The road safety panacea of 20 limits just needs signs sprinkled around at a lesser huge cost.

It would be interesting to know how much money has been spent across UK in implementing inappropriate 20 limits.

Well NO nowhere and if it was on the red routes be a total nightmare.It is supposed to be over 7.5 tonnes access only.However as it is a short cut to Bristol always completely ignored for the last 10 years

It is not WHAT you drive, BUT:-- the WAY that you drive it.It is not HOW fast you drive, BUT:-- HOW you drive fast.

Interesting that council justify the spend as" we are spending for improved safety" then when its not working and it has been proven to be more dangerous they can not find the money to spend for Safety now?

So are these blanket 20 limits about safety or is there some hidden agenda?

Would anyone know if the actual average speeds have increased or decreased since the implementation?